hong I've forked the reply to our discussion to another thread
http://www.enworld.org/forum/genera...9-d-d-seminar-d-d-4th-edition-video-game.html
http://www.enworld.org/forum/genera...9-d-d-seminar-d-d-4th-edition-video-game.html
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
GTS 2009 D&D Seminar - the Rouse discusses D&D
- Thread starter sunmaster
- Start date
- Status
TwoSix
Dirty, realism-hating munchkin powergamer
A question and point:
Question: Are there any plans for advertising on some the larger MMO-related websites, particularly WoW related sites? (WoW forums, WoW Insider, WoWHead, etc.) Marketing D&D as WoW + friends over - thousands of dollars in laptops might cause occasional apoplexy, but I can't see a better place to market medieval fantasy to teenagers.
Point: There are rules already in place that I think do a good job of putting "fluff" into mechanics: Epic Destinies. Prince of Hell, Archlich, Mystic Sovereign, Dark Wanderer; all of them have fluff that makes you go "ooh", and does a good job of putting that into mechanics. Heck, there's an ED that lets you make a demiplane!
The problem with that fluff is that it's remote; I'm sure epic is the least played tier. Putting social/non-combat oriented fluff into Paragon Paths or multi-class feats of similar would be a lot of fun, I think. I'd take a Paragon Path like "Academy Headmaster" or "King's Vizier" or "Patriarch", with mostly non-combat benefits. I'm sure a lot of players would too, because Path benefits feel like a bonus, rather than an integral part of a lot of builds.
Question: Are there any plans for advertising on some the larger MMO-related websites, particularly WoW related sites? (WoW forums, WoW Insider, WoWHead, etc.) Marketing D&D as WoW + friends over - thousands of dollars in laptops might cause occasional apoplexy, but I can't see a better place to market medieval fantasy to teenagers.
Point: There are rules already in place that I think do a good job of putting "fluff" into mechanics: Epic Destinies. Prince of Hell, Archlich, Mystic Sovereign, Dark Wanderer; all of them have fluff that makes you go "ooh", and does a good job of putting that into mechanics. Heck, there's an ED that lets you make a demiplane!
The problem with that fluff is that it's remote; I'm sure epic is the least played tier. Putting social/non-combat oriented fluff into Paragon Paths or multi-class feats of similar would be a lot of fun, I think. I'd take a Paragon Path like "Academy Headmaster" or "King's Vizier" or "Patriarch", with mostly non-combat benefits. I'm sure a lot of players would too, because Path benefits feel like a bonus, rather than an integral part of a lot of builds.
JoeGKushner
First Post
Dungeon.
No, not the magazine, the board game.
Make it so that it's tile based and uses figures from the DDM line.
The tiles would allow some different configurations.
With FFG making Talisman and having Descent, it's a place where there is a proven market.
If it's made to the point where it's cheaper than either of those due to reusing existing components, and is a fun game, then it'll be a hit.
No, not the magazine, the board game.
Make it so that it's tile based and uses figures from the DDM line.
The tiles would allow some different configurations.
With FFG making Talisman and having Descent, it's a place where there is a proven market.
If it's made to the point where it's cheaper than either of those due to reusing existing components, and is a fun game, then it'll be a hit.
I have greatly enjoyed Robin Laws designs, and can think of no one better to write a "story telling" essay. However ...
I think it's problematic to conflate the concepts so that "story telling" replaces the more traditional "role playing" concept in D&D. References to the ground-breaking Ravenloft module send shudders down some spines, and NOT for the reasons a Hammer Dracula movie might. Certainly the D&D brand identity has expanded to encompass the approach of the Dragonlance module series and so on, but I can't see a contraction to only -- or even primarily -- that as a good idea.
I won't attempt to offer here an explanation Laws is better equipped to give, but there is already a dissonance in the 4E rules design. I suspect that some difficulties with the skill challenge formalism are related to that.
Suggestions that classic dungeon adventures are adequately described as "killing things and taking their stuff" or as "not role-playing" seem to me to miss critical elements of success. There is similar confusion in the notion that WotC's games are inherently more "tactically rich" than old D&D, a confusion that I think has contributed to some less than exciting scenarios.
There is room to accommodate different approaches, but it's a good start to understand what their characteristics actually are. Many criticisms of 4E could be taken as challenges to realize more fully the potential of the basic "game engine". One thought I have is that a more clearly modular approach to game systems could facilitate that -- along with opportunities to present supplementary products appealing to those who want to fine-tune the game to their tastes.
Looking ahead to the initiative to attract new players, I think one might take another look at what could constitute a "Basic Set" with appeal similar to the classic TSR products. The exercise could help identify the modularization to which I referred above, the core structures already at the heart of the more elaborate and systematically integrated design. There is a beauty in simplicity, as well as in the baroque.
I think it's problematic to conflate the concepts so that "story telling" replaces the more traditional "role playing" concept in D&D. References to the ground-breaking Ravenloft module send shudders down some spines, and NOT for the reasons a Hammer Dracula movie might. Certainly the D&D brand identity has expanded to encompass the approach of the Dragonlance module series and so on, but I can't see a contraction to only -- or even primarily -- that as a good idea.
I won't attempt to offer here an explanation Laws is better equipped to give, but there is already a dissonance in the 4E rules design. I suspect that some difficulties with the skill challenge formalism are related to that.
Suggestions that classic dungeon adventures are adequately described as "killing things and taking their stuff" or as "not role-playing" seem to me to miss critical elements of success. There is similar confusion in the notion that WotC's games are inherently more "tactically rich" than old D&D, a confusion that I think has contributed to some less than exciting scenarios.
There is room to accommodate different approaches, but it's a good start to understand what their characteristics actually are. Many criticisms of 4E could be taken as challenges to realize more fully the potential of the basic "game engine". One thought I have is that a more clearly modular approach to game systems could facilitate that -- along with opportunities to present supplementary products appealing to those who want to fine-tune the game to their tastes.
Looking ahead to the initiative to attract new players, I think one might take another look at what could constitute a "Basic Set" with appeal similar to the classic TSR products. The exercise could help identify the modularization to which I referred above, the core structures already at the heart of the more elaborate and systematically integrated design. There is a beauty in simplicity, as well as in the baroque.
Mephistopheles
First Post
I think that's a good point. By not attempting the conversion it has the potential to send a message that says "this edition is so different from what has come before that attempting conversion is pointless" - upon typing that it seems so familiar that I think one of the previews may have said something like it, actually - which may instill a perception that it's no longer the same game. Even if the conversion is clunky and doesn't really work it gets people looking at the game and thinking about representing their characters in it rather than just feeling that they shouldn't bother to look at it.
Also, as an aside, I'd like to join those who are thanking you for your participation in this thread, Scott. It's refreshing to see some frank and personal and informative communication coming from WotC after some of the events of recent weeks. So...thanks!
The only thing that did not transfer well from 2.X to 3.X was multi-class levels. Everything else was simple.
I am curious to hear from Scott if both game systems (3.X and 4.0) could still be supported at the same time as different games.
Holy Smokes
First Post
Heyas Scott,
Dungeon needs some higher octane fuel than the stuff you're feeding it now; consider more 4E conversions of classic adventures, and not just 1st edition mods. Refactor them a bit for all the things that work great in 4E (dynamic terrain, skill challenges, etc.), but also use that as way to demonstrate both better roleplaying chops, and fidelity to traditional play style modes. Ravenloft is a great example candidate for this treatment; I'd like to see a really polished 4E refactor of Sunken Citadel, or better yet, Sinister Secret Of Saltmarsh. This is ideal DDI content (either free or sub), and would create opportunities to make a statement about the direction D&D is going.
Dungeon needs some higher octane fuel than the stuff you're feeding it now; consider more 4E conversions of classic adventures, and not just 1st edition mods. Refactor them a bit for all the things that work great in 4E (dynamic terrain, skill challenges, etc.), but also use that as way to demonstrate both better roleplaying chops, and fidelity to traditional play style modes. Ravenloft is a great example candidate for this treatment; I'd like to see a really polished 4E refactor of Sunken Citadel, or better yet, Sinister Secret Of Saltmarsh. This is ideal DDI content (either free or sub), and would create opportunities to make a statement about the direction D&D is going.
dm4hire
Explorer
I'd like to say thanks also Scott and nice to see that WotC is listening to all sides and wanting to repair the disconnect that has happened during the change over to 4e. I agree that adding in some of the elements that were cut back, such as skills that had more emphasis in role-playing, i.e. cooking, crafting, etc will be a good starting point.
Festivus
First Post
Anecdotal, but I have personally spoken with at least a dozen people who came to our gameday meetups or delve night event because they were listening to the podcast and wanted to give the game a try in person. These are typically easy to spot, brand new cube of chessex dice, no miniature, and a copy of PHB1 with no dents or dings on the corners yet.
That is out of a sampling of about 75 unique individuals over the past month or two, and that was only those who told me about it... I didn't fish for that information so there could be more.
I was one of the complainers about the paragon characters at the gameday events, much better looking stuff for the MM2 event (but there were questions about why not more classes from outside the first book)
- Status
